Clinton Campaign Considered Bill Gates, Tim Cook For Vice President (theverge.com) 171
WikiLeaks has been releasing thousands of emails over the past couple of weeks belonging to Hillary Clinton's campaign chair John Podesta. One of the more interesting tidbits revealed from the email dump was the list of potential running mates considered by Clinton's campaign. The Verge reports: Clinton's vice presidential candidates, while not altogether surprising, include some vaguely interesting choices like Bill and Melinda Gates, Apple CEO Tim Cook, and General Motors CEO Mary Barra. In the mail, Podesta says he has organized the list into "rough food groups," one of which includes all the people mentioned above. Xerox CEO Ursula Burns and Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz are also in this "food group," along with Michael Bloomberg. With just under 40 names on the list, it's not immediately obvious how close any of these people came to actually being asked to take on the role (Tim Kaine is on the list).
Why go for fluff instead of meat? (Score:5, Informative)
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
Some more nominations (Score:3, Informative)
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
An excellent choice, monseur.
Might I also recommend https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
or perhaps https://twitter.com/wikileaks/... [twitter.com]
Re:Some more nominations (Score:5, Informative)
There's actually a much less thoroughly linked or explained version of the story that beat mine. I wonder which one they'll post, if any? I guess I should've quoted the full story, though so it doesn't get burred.
Sources:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] - Confession caught on video for Zulema and others.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/san... [msnbc.com] - Old news report showing the 'split' between real & fake Sanders supporters.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] - Old video showing this lady at the AZ protests (and lying, etc.)
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disb... [fec.gov] - FED disbursement data showing her payments from MoveOn.org
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-... [wikileaks.org] - Wikileaks email regarding the strategy they were using.
https://i.sli.mg/dNBRek.png [i.sli.mg] - A handy image to help you compare her appearance in the confession & the AZ protest videos. Note the same mole on her chest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder which one they'll post, if any?
Hopefully none of them, they aren't really related to tech. We need to keep the focus on the tech angle of things.
I would have liked to see a story that talks about the vulnerabilities in Trump's email server, apparently they're serious.
Re:Some more nominations (Score:5, Insightful)
> In short, the "story" here is that MoveOn was staging anti-Trump protests. OMG, you don't say? I never knew that ;)
They took credit for creating violence on camera. Exactly how do you think that was faked when they have the person and voice on camera, as well as contemporaneous evidence both that they were there and that they lied to the cops? And their pay stub from the FEC.
Also, if it's fake, why did they fire one of them just the other day?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok - I thought the story was the Clinton campaign and the possibility of VP choices with assets from which they could not divest, properly or at all.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Some more nominations (Score:5, Insightful)
Did you even watch the videos? They also discuss election fraud in the second one, as well as how to keep things off the record.
It's all on camera and there's corroborating evidence to tie them to the acts claimed in the video.
Should I ask how much CTR pays you? I mean, you spin things full time on every single political story as far as I can see. Go check my history, I have better things to do and I was for Obama originally. Should be able to see that assuming Slashdot hasn't completely horked all the old story comments. Guess you might not remember it with that UID, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, I don't understand you. Do you know the people talking in the videos? Why do you think they are talking about things that no one is supposed to know? Stupidity? Or they are working for opposite purposes than they are claiming to work for?
In at least one place the video is dishonest - they introduced a person by prefacing it by his tax fraud conviction - I didn't see how it was relevant except to prejudice people. This part was in both the videos. But he doesn't introduce himself with his misdemeanor. Do
Re: (Score:2)
They also discuss election fraud in the second one, as well as how to keep things off the record.
They discuss how to keep things off the record on a video recording?
Re: (Score:2)
When the election's over, you're going to miss my fun-loving Trump commentary. Admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I love Westerns.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the thing about low-hanging fruit. There's always more.
Re: (Score:2)
So show us your video and corroborating evidence from 3rd parties like the FEC, as we have here. Don't worry, I'll wait.
Re: (Score:1)
You're the one making accusations. I don't have to show evidence at all. And your evidence is from a reliably unreliable source. You'll need better witnesses if you want to make a case.
Re: (Score:2)
TIL that you consider the FEC unreliable. Whatever you think of the video, there are plenty of corroborating sources.
You made up some nonsense with no evidence at all as a phony equivalence, but we have video here and you have nothing.
So who runs FEC.GOV exactly? (Score:2)
> You don't have anything from the FEC, but your claim that you do...makes you unreliable.
So, why don't we read my submission again? Here's a link to it for the lazy: https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
Did you see the words the words "FEC records of disbursements to her"? Check where the link points to, it goes to here:
https://beta.fec.gov/data/disb... [fec.gov]
See that FEC.GOV in the URL? Can you tell me who runs this site? Yeah, it's the FEC, who you said I "don't have anything from" just now.
That data shows
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, a routine financial disclosure placing the person in two videos--one of which has her lying to the cops--on the Democrat's payroll.
And no, we don't have to take O'Keefe's word for anything: the video of her lying to the cops about why she's there is independent and has been up for months prior to this revelation.
Re: (Score:2)
the "story" here is that MoveOn was staging anti-Trump protests. OMG, you don't say? I never knew that ;)
A lot of people don't know that. Which, frankly, is why that kind of protest/tactic works at all. I wish more people would know about it, so the tactic would stop working. Because it's annoying.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, because when I'm looking for credible recording, and not fakery and setup jobs, I always turn to James OKeefe [wikipedia.org]. Gold standard in credibility right there.
In case you didn't notice, your "Podesta email" is from:
ilyse@moveon.org
to:
bigcampaign@googlegroups.com
The latter, is of course, a mailing list. A mailing list that we don't know whether the subscriber even actively read. In short, the "story" here is that MoveOn was staging anti-Trump protests. OMG, you don't say? I never knew that ;)
Uh, yeah, Hillary. Let me guess, the Russians were behind it, too, right?
O'Keefe is irrelevant. Either they said what they said or they didn't, and they did. Quit trying to detract attention from the story. These people aren't doing anti-Trump protests - they're inciting and participating in violent acts and trying to make it look like Sanders and Trump supporters are doing it. It's odd the moveon.org would be spending money like this - I thought they were against using money in the political process?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worrk guys, I'm sure simply hiding the fact this guy is a proven fraud and paid a $100,000 fine for a libelous fake video will make it all go away.
Tim Cook for VP! (Score:4, Funny)
Tim on the campaign trail:
Here's the full menu (Score:5, Informative)
I'll spare you all a click because there's nothing to see here unless you're interested in their "food groups" and which they thought they needed. Here's the full list of VP ideas put forth listed by the category they all appear to fit into (which is not, in fact, listed in the email, just to be clear about that):
Hispanic Men
Rep. Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, Secretary of Labor Tom Perez and Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar.
Women
Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Claire McKaskill, Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
White Men
Sen. Michael Bennet, Sen. Sherrod Brown, Sen. Martin Heinrich, Sen. Tim Kaine, Gov. Terry McAuliffe, Sen. Chris Murphy and Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack.
Black Men
Columbia, S.C., Mayor Stephen Benjamin, Sen. Cory Booker, Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum, former Attorney General Eric Holder, former Gov. Deval Patrick, Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed and Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx.
Military Leaders
Gen. John Allen, Adm. William McCraven and Adm. Michael Mullen
Rich Businesspeople
GM CEO Mary Barra, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Xerox CEO Ursula Burns, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Microsoft founder Bill Gates, philanthropist Melinda Gates, Coca-Cola CEO Muhtar Kent, Rockefeller Foundation President Judith Rodin and Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz
Other
Sen. Bernie Sanders
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. Liberals will be quick to call him another "white" man as soon as it suits them. Denying him his genetic, cultural, and national distinctiveness is now part of the progressive agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pssst! Sanders is a Jew.
Interesting, but not suprising. Identity politics (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative.
Exactly how does one use their genitals to perform the job of vice president? Whether or not a potential candidate has a penis is apparently the #1 most important consideration; does the SIZE of their penis matter?
I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:
Legistlative Experience
Executive Experience (govt)
Executive Experience (private sector)
Foreign Policy Experience
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, but I do find it interesting and illustrative
The concern trolling is adorable but misplaced.
All this shows is that one guy grouped people based on the obvious political signalling implications of each pick, which is pretty much the main effect of a VP pick in the general election. There's no reason they would have gone forward with an unqualified candidate based solely on gender (such as certain nominees named McCain).
I would hope that if someone like Paul Ryan was making the list his categories would be something like:
Legistlative Experience
Executive Experience (govt)
Executive Experience (private sector)
Foreign Policy Experience
I would hope I get a T-Rex for my birthday. I think I have a better than you.
Paul Ryan would choose his pick the same way every other n
Re: (Score:2)
> Romney chose Ryan because Ryan was respected by the Tea Party (which was very dubious of Romney).
Romney sought to balance what he thought was the important, difference, political positions on the issues of the day.
> Trump chose Pence to reassure the GOP that Trump would be under adult supervision.
Trump sought to balance on what he thought was the important difference - temperment and government experience.
Clinton sought to balance what she thinks is important - gentals.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesnt. Those are obviously candidates that would target specific demographics. VP doesnt have to go after women votes (Clinton has that covered), looks like they decided on a VP that would most appeal to white population.
Isnt it obvious with Bernie being in a category of his own?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure the only difference between men and women is the genitals?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not *suprised* the Dems lumped candidates into buckets based solely on race and gender, rather than perhaps QUALIFICATIONS FOR JOB, ...
The word "qualifications" in your case has a very broad meaning. You need to understand that those categories are set for "strategic" in order to help making decision. Once you understood, then categorized candidates into groups of expecting people to vote can be seen as a "qualification" as well. If you are talking about those who can get jobs done while in the office, then you will never find one in politics because you should know why...
Also, I highly doubt that Republicant part would differently strateg
Predicting the past again (Score:2)
> Also, I highly doubt that Republicant part would differently strategize their plan.
We do not have to guess what Republicans *might* do, we *know* what they did.
On choosing Paul Ryan, Romney sought to balance what he thought was the important, difference, political positions on the issues of the day.
With Pence, Trump sought to balance on what he thought was the important difference - temperment and government experience.
Clinton sought to balance what she thinks is important - gentals.
Maybe it's similar (Score:2)
> Ghere are many fantastic and far more capable and proven African Americans who would have been FAR better as the first one in the White House.
> Trumpster's not the best male in the country either, but he's not trying to go down in history as the first male president (First oompaloompah, perhaps
Orange IS the new black.
Who *created* binders full of women? (Score:2)
Romney reported that "women's groups" brought his administration "whole binders full of women". Who exactly created "binders full of women" and brought them to the state house?
That would be MassGAP, an organization created by and affiliated with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus. The front page of their web site lists the candidates they are endorsing this year. Guess which political party they all belong to? That's right, the binders full of women were created by a bunch of Democrats. Because t
Re: (Score:2)
The Melinda Gates idea was a bit odd since I'm not sure what she's done of significance other than marry Bill Gates. And I don't think that's a narrative that Hillary Clinton really wanted to introduce to the campaign. I take it as an indication that this was a very preliminary list.
The number of business people is surprising, I think they were worried that Trump would start coming across as competent and they're need someone richer to undercut the "rich business person knows how to fix economy" narrative.
Re: (Score:2)
People who don't believe that VP picks have always been analyzed this way are naive. Lincoln picked Andrew Johnson because Johnson was from a border state (Tennessee) that could go either way. The primary goal of a VP pick is to help you win. Everything else is secondary.
The VP pick is all about picking up votes from electorate segments you might not otherwise get (Palin/women), or solidifying shaky part of your coalition (Biden/labor and left), or being young when you are old or vice versa (Quayle). Comi
Re: (Score:2)
omg how much more evidence of corruption do you need
Don't forget the money, of course! That's $225k per speech. Goldman Sachs paid for three such speeches.
Re: (Score:1)
Everyone else is covering that story to death. The "food groups" the nominees are in are their race, gender & wealth if you're wondering. Sanders is their very last choice, all by himself. So why not release this story instead, which almost nobody is covering right now?
https://slashdot.org/submissio... [slashdot.org]
Because the evidence is junk.
First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.
As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for
Re: (Score:3)
You mean her lying to the cops while blocking the road and faking being sick? Now look at the other protest she claims credit for. It's one where cops were injured.
Attacking the source (Score:5, Interesting)
Because the evidence is junk.
First the "investigative" video is by James O'Keefe, who is infamous for dishonestly editing and framing videos to create the false appearance of criminal behaviour. And yes, you're allowed to shoot the messenger when the messenger is lying.
As for the woman Zulema, even if she was a Clinton supporter or even worked some aspect of the Clinton campaign (they must have thousands of paid staffers) that doesn't mean she was part of a Clinton conspiracy to frame Sanders supporters for violent protests. People who work in politics sometimes care about politics too, and they're more than capable of attending a protest on their own.
Oh, and I don't know what she has to do with the violent protests anyway, the video is of her at a peaceful (though disruptive) protest on a highway!
Huh.
Scott Adams has a blog post [dilbert.com] on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.
I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.
Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".
Was that on purpose?
Re: (Score:1)
Huh.
Scott Adams has a blog post [dilbert.com] on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.
I'd largely agree, with exceptions. I'd also point out it's ironic considering how much of a Trump fan Scott Adams is (ie, Trump's response to the women accusing him of assault).
I don't know about those sorts of things, maybe this is the statistically improbably case where a non-guilty person attacks the messenger.
Then again, you don't cite any sources, show independent reviews of the evidence, or even any rationalization. Just "the evidence is junk".
Was that on purpose?
I'll cite a source that says James O'Keefe makes videos that are lies after I cite a source that says the sky is blue. Both are extremely well established facts.
As for further reviews, I'm not going to bother analyzing manufactured evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless the source is the kid who cried wolf. If you've lost your credibility don't expect me to once again spend time discrediting your latest fantasy, regardless of what Scott Adams may or may not choose to conclude from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Scott Adams has a blog post on attacking the source, and claims it's almost always a "tell" for being guilty.
So I read more of the link for context and was surprised to see Adams acknowledge that Trump was guilty.
It doesn't change the validity of disputing the account of an extremely dishonest source like James O'Keefe.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, despite his "certified genius level IQ" (his words, not mine) the guy's a bit of an idiot.
There is literally nothing wrong with attacking the source if the source is crap. For example, if someone points to "evidence" on Breitbart, I'm not going to read it, I'm going to point out their source is utter junk so I may as well ignore their point as unsourced. I mean sure, they might have had a corre
Re: (Score:2)
Scott Adams is not an authority. He did say it. It's true (I read it as well). So what [yourlogicalfallacyis.com]?
Attacking the source on unrelated charges is a sign of believing the charges (not of guilt, because the people doing the attacking are not the people in a position to know). Attacking the source for being unreliable, on the other hand, is completely legitimate.
Saying "the accuser has been known to repeatedly lie and manufacture evidence in the past" is on the point and relevant.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
Emails given out of order and context in order to show how corrupt Clinton is.
So we get some of the vetting process of picking a VP.
Going against trump it may had been a good idea to consider a democrat successful business person, just to put a stop to the business person knows more than a politician debate. However with trump just being insane it isn't much of an issue so they went with the borrinh not to upstage VP pick.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
They also have help in their voter fraud fun... (Score:1)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs
Could be worse... (Score:3)
Larry Ellison could have been on that list (shudder!)
Re: (Score:2)
Larry Ellison wouldn't take the job because he knows his own company would bilk his administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Quite a step down... (Score:5, Informative)
For people like Bill Gates and Tim Cook, vice president would be a very real step down from what they do presently.
Yes, I'm saying the CEO of Apple and a retired billionaire turned philanthropist have more power than the second highest ranking elected official in the United States. Because the position isn't worth a warm bucket of piss.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
For Tim Cook, the presidency would be a huge demotion. Today, he runs a company that has tens of millions of satisfied customers.
-jcr
The USA has hundreds of millions of satisfied customers too. They may pretend to be angry and upset with their lot, but you don't too many of them moving. Just like teenage kids they bitch and moan about life not being fair, but they come home to a bed and a meal everyday which is better than the alternative.
If I truly wasn't happy with my lot I'd move somewhere better, in fact that's exactly what I did. And it's what millions of refugees attempt to do every year. Since we don't see this from the US, we ca
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This. What any presidential candidate needs is a veep who is inert - someone who won't outshine the candidate and doesn't have strong opinions (especially those that might conflict with said candidate).
None of the people on the "rich" flavor list could possibly fit that criteria. Someone was having fun daydreaming and actually wrote it down.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you dividing black by white?
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Ursula Burns is a trainwreck (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Careful now. You can't talk like that about Democrats.
Citing issues and track record is just a smoke screen for racism, because any and all criticism of Democrats is 100% based in racism/sexism/*phobia.
Freudian Slip (Score:1)
Is anyone else disturbed by the apparent ramifications of this? Perhaps those lizard people "conspiracy theories" of have more credence than we were led to believe.
Re: (Score:1)
I'd vote for a lizard person over Bill Gates, although I suppose that's not necessarily mutually exclusive.
And I considered Kathy Ireland for my girlfriend.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Everything on the Interwebs is true, even the warnings that the Interwebs are not true.
Re: (Score:1)
Those writing the lists tend to embellish the actual facts. Further, the C's are rather up there in age, such that their acquaintances are at the age people start dying frequently of age-related ailments.
Re: (Score:2)
THIS is the "more interesting tidbit?" (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, when all Trump can do is court the NRA vote, he's going to lose.
He may not win, but he'll be getting WAY more than the votes from the few million members of the NRA. Because there are many tens of millions of active voters who don't want to see her in office.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh (Score:2)
Business is not politics. There's little reason why (once you've got over the low bar of being able to put your shoes on) being good at one should make you good at the other.
War isn't politics either. Arthur Wellesley - brilliant general, repressive asshole prime minister. Grant - OK general, a tad genocidal with the Indians.
Best Clinton for the job (Score:2)
Unless George Clinton of the Parliament-Funkadelic is picked for VP, I don't think I'll be voting this election.
Clintongate (Score:2)
We've already got Clintongate, and if we get into a war with Russia we're all cooked.
Sorry it has to be said! (Score:2)
on subject of candidates... (Score:2)
Re:My original reply deleted...interesting. (Score:4, Interesting)
Don't worry, I actually covered that in a comment to my own submission, which is the first post on this story.
Also, let's linkify that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Right. Part two of "James O'Keefe Does His Typical Hit Jobs".
For anyone who doesn't know his past, he made his name with the "ACORN videos", which led to investigations of the organization - and consequently, the videos. The results? From the Wikipedia summary:
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently neither does Trump [twitter.com].
"Trump corp email servers - all internet accessible, single factor auth, no MDM, Win2003, no security patching."
Funny how nobody bothered hacking that.
Re: (Score:2)
But then again... maybe that wasn't fair of me. The security aspect of cyber is very very tough.
Re: (Score:2)